Structural Engineering: 2007-03-25

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Re: OT: gas price (was Geotech reports)

I just paid $1.95/gal for gas, and $0.38/gal for state and federal "road projects". ;-)

Jordan

Gunnar H. Isleifsson wrote:

Just tanked up my car this evening for $6.94/gal

Gunnar Hafsteinn Isleifsson

Denmark

Re: cantilever T-beam

Kevin,
I was thinking only of a cantilever because the previous writer was
proposing to use K = 2.
As for your example, I often run into that on overhead cranes with
walkways. I often use the guard-rail as an auxiliary truss, if I don't
want to, or can't, cantilever off the bridge girder. The customer says
"what in H" is that HSS 8x4 or whatever top rail on the guard rail.
Fortunately, sometimes I can brace back laterally to the bottom flange
of the bridge girder at the centre or 1/3 points to reduce the
unsupported length.
Gary

Kevin Below wrote:
> Gary, does that mean that a bridge with side trusses which support the
> deck on the bottom member does not have a potential buckling problem
> of the top chords under the compression load ? Your explanation is
> logical, but I hadn't thought about it before.
> I'm thinking of a short steel footbridge I have to do soon. I was
> concerned about buckling of the top chord (which is also the hand-rail).
>
> On 3/29/07, * Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc.* <ghodgson@bellnet.ca
> <mailto:ghodgson@bellnet.ca>> wrote:
>
> Jason,
> You might look at where the load is applied on the cantilever.
> Nethercott in Britain then Galambos in the USA gave descriptions
> of the
> appropriate length factor for cantilevers. If the load is applied
> above
> or below the neutral axis determines whether the beam can buckle
> sideways. For example, I get involved with a lot of crane
> runways, e.g.
> a single monorail beam cantilever, loaded on the bottom flange,
> cannot
> buckle to the side as the vertical load is counteracting the
> tendency to
> buckle sideways. Hope this helps.
> Gary
>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*

http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: ListServer Anomaly: Stacks/Queues:LIFO/FIFO and Timezones

I get the same thing.
I visited Victoria in 2003 and really liked it. I had been there in
1964, but my recollections are kind of dim, mostly because of an alcohol
induced haze--I was still in the military then. I would take it over
Vancouver where I spent 10 months of which 4 months (winter) were
non-stop rain.
Gary

Thor Tandy wrote:
> David
>
> Let me know when/if you do visit. Don't wait too long ... Victoria's
> quickly turning into a regular city ... ain't so quaint as it was in
> 1979 when I was first washed up on the beach, or even 1991 when I
> returned here to live. I almost think Smithers is a place to be now :^)
>
> Thor
>
> David Topete wrote:
>>
>> Well, you can blame that one on NAFTA. Actually, it's pausing for
>> some tea in Victoria. OT: Went to Vancouver a few years back, but
>> couldn't make it over to Victoria. We'll make it there soon.
>>
>> *David A. Topete, SE*
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Thor Tandy [mailto:vicpeng@telus.net]
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 30, 2007 9:49 AM
>> *To:* seaint@seaint.org
>> *Subject:* Re: ListServer Anomaly: Stacks/Queues:LIFO/FIFO and Timezones
>>
>> I've been seeing the same thing here and /I'm/ just across the border.
>>
>> Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, MIStructE, Struct Eng
>>

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: OT: gas price (was Geotech reports)

Beer's cheap here, at least compared to Iceland, where I come from. At a grocery store you can get a case of beer (30 bottles @ 1/3 liters) for $27 ($10/gal), that is, if you can afford it after paying 49% state income tax (no earthquakes though, but lots of plan-checkers).

Gunnar

Denmark

From: SIMON BATCHELOR [mailto:sovereigneng@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: 31 March 2007 04:15
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: OT: gas price (was Geotech reports)

How much is a beer over there?

Simon Batchelor

"Gunnar H. Isleifsson" <ghi@pc.dk> wrote:

Just tanked up my car this evening for $6.94/gal

Gunnar Hafsteinn Isleifsson

Denmark

From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 March 2007 23:10
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Geotech reports

Gerard:

This is more evidence that you live in a sorry state! My gas is $2.44/gal and everybody is complaining about it being so high. Also, we still have no state income tax, no earthquakes, and no plan-checkers.

http://autos.msn.com/everyday/GasStations.aspx?station=554817&lat=32.83648&long=-96.76134&ico=111&m=1&l=1&zip=75225#map

Stan

On 3/30/07, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyway you can help us out on the price of gas? :-)

$3.37/gal at for Unleaded at the Chevron 'round the corner.

-g

Friday, March 30, 2007

Re: Geotech reports

The lat time I saw anybody placing boring logs on the
drawings was in 1972 or 73. My employer made me do
it.

You definitely do not want to reproduce the contents
of the geotech report on your drawings, that is why we
have copiers. You want to disassociate yourself from
the geotechnical work as much as practical.

The problem with telling the Contractor to comply with
the Geotech Report is because this makes it fairly
easy for the Contractor to claim an extra when the
Geotech tells him to fix something.

If your primary concern has to do with bearing values
for a spread footing on fairly good soil maybe there
is little risk especially if the Geotech inspects the
excavation.

I believe the solution is to 1) either have the
Geotech draft the notes to be placed on your drawings
or have him prepare separate specs for the earthwork.
In either case the Geotech needs to be involved in
preparing the contract documents.

I also appreciate the fact that plan checkers will
often require a note saying that the work be done in
accordance with the Geotech Report. You may have
little choice but to comply but plan checkers have
also been wrong before.

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: cantilever T-beam

Gary, does that mean that a bridge with side trusses which support the deck on the bottom member does not have a potential buckling problem of the top chords under the compression load ? Your explanation is logical, but I hadn't thought about it before.
I'm thinking of a short steel footbridge I have to do soon. I was concerned about buckling of the top chord (which is also the hand-rail).

On 3/29/07, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. <ghodgson@bellnet.ca> wrote:

Jason,
You might look at where the load is applied on the cantilever.
Nethercott in Britain then Galambos in the USA gave descriptions of the
appropriate length factor for cantilevers.  If the load is applied above
or below the neutral axis determines whether the beam can buckle
sideways.  For example, I get involved with a lot of crane runways, e.g.
a single monorail beam cantilever,  loaded on the bottom flange, cannot
buckle to the side as the vertical load is counteracting the tendency to
buckle sideways. Hope this helps.
Gary

Re: OT: gas price (was Geotech reports)

How much is a beer over there?

Simon Batchelor

"Gunnar H. Isleifsson" <ghi@pc.dk> wrote:

Just tanked up my car this evening for $6.94/gal

Gunnar Hafsteinn Isleifsson

Denmark

From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 March 2007 23:10
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Geotech reports

Gerard:

This is more evidence that you live in a sorry state! My gas is $2.44/gal and everybody is complaining about it being so high. Also, we still have no state income tax, no earthquakes, and no plan-checkers.

http://autos.msn.com/everyday/GasStations.aspx?station=554817&lat=32.83648&long=-96.76134&ico=111&m=1&l=1&zip=75225#map

Stan

On 3/30/07, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyway you can help us out on the price of gas? :-)

$3.37/gal at for Unleaded at the Chevron 'round the corner.

-g

OT: gas price (was Geotech reports)

Just tanked up my car this evening for $6.94/gal

Gunnar Hafsteinn Isleifsson

Denmark

From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 March 2007 23:10
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Geotech reports

Gerard:

This is more evidence that you live in a sorry state! My gas is $2.44/gal and everybody is complaining about it being so high. Also, we still have no state income tax, no earthquakes, and no plan-checkers.

http://autos.msn.com/everyday/GasStations.aspx?station=554817&lat=32.83648&long=-96.76134&ico=111&m=1&l=1&zip=75225#map

Stan

On 3/30/07, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyway you can help us out on the price of gas? :-)

$3.37/gal at for Unleaded at the Chevron 'round the corner.

-g

Re: Geotech reports

Al-

This is becoming more common in heavy underground construction (particularly tunnel work) where the Geotechnical Data Report (boring logs, seismic tests, fracture logs, lab tests, packer tests, etc) are included as data, a Geotechnical Interpretive report giving the Geotechs opinions, and a Geotechnical Baseline Report presenting what conditions the Geotech expects the Contractor to find are part of the contract documents. The rationale is that it makes the negotiating of changed conditions much more straightforward. Where the conditions are pretty well known and straightforward, there isn't as much value.

Regards,

Bill Cain, SE

Berkeley CA

-----Original Message-----
From: AGFO@chevron.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 8:15 AM
Subject: Geotech reports

I have an architect who wants the geotech report text to be part of the contract documents for construction. I can see it for the bore logs and tests. Your thoughts?

Al Greene, PE, SECB
Chevron Richmond Refinery
841 Chevron Way, 244/Tech Center
Richmond, CA 94802
Phone: (510) 242-1788
Fax: (510) 242-2509
Cell: (510) 507-5080
agfo@chevron.com

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Re: Geotech reports

Are you trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

-g

Go Giants (Amphetamine and Juice free!!!)

On 3/30/07, David Topete < dtopete@gfdseng.com> wrote:

"Let's not start a Holy War, Harris…"

David

From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:10 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Geotech reports

Gerard:

This is more evidence that you live in a sorry state! My gas is $2.44/gal and everybody is complaining about it being so high. Also, we still have no state income tax, no earthquakes, and no plan-checkers.

http://autos.msn.com/everyday/GasStations.aspx?station=554817&lat=32.83648&long=-96.76134&ico=111&m=1&l=1&zip=75225#map

Stan

On 3/30/07, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyway you can help us out on the price of gas? :-)

$3.37/gal at for Unleaded at the Chevron 'round the corner.

-g

--
-gm

Re: Geotech reports

We have Paris Hilton. NUFF SAID

-gm
:-)

On 3/30/07, Stan Caldwell <stancaldwell@gmail.com> wrote:

Gerard:

This is more evidence that you live in a sorry state! My gas is $2.44/gal and everybody is complaining about it being so high. Also, we still have no state income tax, no earthquakes, and no plan-checkers.

http://autos.msn.com/everyday/GasStations.aspx?station=554817&lat=32.83648&long=-96.76134&ico=111&m=1&l=1&zip=75225#map

Stan

On 3/30/07, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com > wrote:
Anyway you can help us out on the price of gas? :-)

$3.37/gal at for Unleaded at the Chevron 'round the corner.

-g

--
-gm

RE: Geotech reports

“Let’s not start a Holy War, Harris…”

David

From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:10 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Geotech reports

Gerard:

http://autos.msn.com/everyday/GasStations.aspx?station=554817&lat=32.83648&long=-96.76134&ico=111&m=1&l=1&zip=75225#map

Stan

On 3/30/07, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyway you can help us out on the price of gas? :-)

$3.37/gal at for Unleaded at the Chevron 'round the corner.

-g

Re: Geotech reports

Gerard:

http://autos.msn.com/everyday/GasStations.aspx?station=554817&lat=32.83648&long=-96.76134&ico=111&m=1&l=1&zip=75225#map

Stan

On 3/30/07, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyway you can help us out on the price of gas? :-)

$3.37/gal at for Unleaded at the Chevron 'round the corner.

-g

Re: Geotech reports

Anyway you can help us out on the price of gas? :-)

$3.37/gal at for Unleaded at the Chevron 'round the corner.

-g

On 3/30/07, Greene, Al [PTS] <AGFO@chevron.com> wrote:

Thanks to all who responded. Very enlightening.

Al

From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:09 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Geotech reports

Mark Gilligan wrote:

" Your General Notes or other specifications should not
require that work be done in accordance with the
Geotechnical Report. That issue is addressed in the
Earthwork Specifications."

----

A lot of projects I do are small or are residences and the Architect does not generate a separate set of specifications. We refer to the soils report, provide the Soils Engineer's name, contact information, report/file number, and structural design criteria on the general notes. We direct the contractor to follow the recommendations of the soils engineer and soils report and usually the soils engineer is required to be on-site during the foundation work.

I don't see how transposing 38 pages of text, maps, boring logs onto the structural drawings is practical on projects like this.

-gm

On 3/30/07, Mark Gilligan <m_k_gilligan@yahoo.com> wrote:

The problem with the making the geotechnical report a
part of the Contract Documents is that 1) it is not
written in mandadory language and 2) it may discuss a
number of options which you may not want to use.

What should be done is for somebody to edit the
earthwork specification to include the relevant
requirements.  This is likely what your architect is
trying to do.  The Architect/Owner then needs to make
the report itself availible to all bidders so that
they cannot claim that information related to the soil
was hidden from them.

Your General Notes or other specifications should not
require that work be done in accordance with the
Geotechnical Report.  That issue is addressed in the
Earthwork Specifications.

The question then is who edits the earthwork
specification.  In my opinion this should fall to the
Geotech and not the Structural.  The problem is that
many geotechnicals are deficient in this area of
practice.  If somebody else ends up editing this
specification section they should profess their
ignorance of geotechnical issues and require that the
Geotechnical Engineer review and endorse the
specification section.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

--
-gm

--
-gm

RE: Geotech reports

Thanks to all who responded. Very enlightening.

From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:09 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Geotech reports

Mark Gilligan wrote:

" Your General Notes or other specifications should not
require that work be done in accordance with the
Geotechnical Report. That issue is addressed in the
Earthwork Specifications."

----

A lot of projects I do are small or are residences and the Architect does not generate a separate set of specifications. We refer to the soils report, provide the Soils Engineer's name, contact information, report/file number, and structural design criteria on the general notes. We direct the contractor to follow the recommendations of the soils engineer and soils report and usually the soils engineer is required to be on-site during the foundation work.

I don't see how transposing 38 pages of text, maps, boring logs onto the structural drawings is practical on projects like this.

-gm

On 3/30/07, Mark Gilligan <m_k_gilligan@yahoo.com> wrote:

The problem with the making the geotechnical report a
part of the Contract Documents is that 1) it is not
written in mandadory language and 2) it may discuss a
number of options which you may not want to use.

What should be done is for somebody to edit the
earthwork specification to include the relevant
requirements.  This is likely what your architect is
trying to do.  The Architect/Owner then needs to make
the report itself availible to all bidders so that
they cannot claim that information related to the soil
was hidden from them.

Your General Notes or other specifications should not
require that work be done in accordance with the
Geotechnical Report.  That issue is addressed in the
Earthwork Specifications.

The question then is who edits the earthwork
specification.  In my opinion this should fall to the
Geotech and not the Structural.  The problem is that
many geotechnicals are deficient in this area of
practice.  If somebody else ends up editing this
specification section they should profess their
ignorance of geotechnical issues and require that the
Geotechnical Engineer review and endorse the
specification section.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

--
-gm

Re: Geotech reports

On 3/30/07, Mark Gilligan <m_k_gilligan@yahoo.com> wrote:

The problem with the making the geotechnical report a
part of the Contract Documents is that 1) it is not
written in mandadory language and 2) it may discuss a
number of options which you may not want to use.

What should be done is for somebody to edit the
earthwork specification to include the relevant
requirements.  This is likely what your architect is
trying to do.  The Architect/Owner then needs to make
the report itself availible to all bidders so that
they cannot claim that information related to the soil
was hidden from them.

Your General Notes or other specifications should not
require that work be done in accordance with the
Geotechnical Report.  That issue is addressed in the
Earthwork Specifications.

The question then is who edits the earthwork
specification.  In my opinion this should fall to the
Geotech and not the Structural.  The problem is that
many geotechnicals are deficient in this area of
practice.  If somebody else ends up editing this
specification section they should profess their
ignorance of geotechnical issues and require that the
Geotechnical Engineer review and endorse the
specification section.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

--
-gm

Re: ListServer Anomaly: Stacks/Queues:LIFO/FIFO and Timezones

David

Let me know when/if you do visit. Don't wait too long ... Victoria's quickly turning into a regular city ... ain't so quaint as it was in 1979 when I was first washed up on the beach, or even 1991 when I returned here to live. I almost think Smithers is a place to be now :^)

Thor

David Topete wrote:

Well, you can blame that one on NAFTA. Actually, it’s pausing for some tea in Victoria. OT: Went to Vancouver a few years back, but couldn’t make it over to Victoria. We’ll make it there soon.

David A. Topete, SE

From: Thor Tandy [mailto:vicpeng@telus.net]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:49 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: ListServer Anomaly: Stacks/Queues:LIFO/FIFO and Timezones

I've been seeing the same thing here and I'm just across the border.

Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, MIStructE, Struct Eng

Re: Geotech reports

The problem with the making the geotechnical report a
part of the Contract Documents is that 1) it is not
written in mandadory language and 2) it may discuss a
number of options which you may not want to use.

What should be done is for somebody to edit the
earthwork specification to include the relevant
requirements. This is likely what your architect is
trying to do. The Architect/Owner then needs to make
the report itself availible to all bidders so that
they cannot claim that information related to the soil
was hidden from them.

Your General Notes or other specifications should not
require that work be done in accordance with the
Geotechnical Report. That issue is addressed in the
Earthwork Specifications.

The question then is who edits the earthwork
specification. In my opinion this should fall to the
Geotech and not the Structural. The problem is that
many geotechnicals are deficient in this area of
practice. If somebody else ends up editing this
specification section they should profess their
ignorance of geotechnical issues and require that the
Geotechnical Engineer review and endorse the
specification section.

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: Geotech reports

Greene, Al [PTS] wrote:
>
> I have an architect who wants the geotech report text to be part of
> the contract documents for construction. I can see it for the bore
> logs and tests. Your thoughts?
>
> A
>
We refer to the geotechnical report in our general notes and the
geotechnical reports are usually included with the contract documents.

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: ListServer Anomaly: Stacks/Queues:LIFO/FIFO and Timezones

I've been seeing the same thing here and I'm just across the border.

Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, MIStructE, Struct Eng
Victoria, BC
Canada

David Topete wrote:

That’s a lot of wire to transfer information from here to “Down Undah”… J

David A. Topete, SE

From: Conrad Harrison [mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:35 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: ListServer Anomaly: Stacks/Queues:LIFO/FIFO and Timezones

Often I seem to receive replies before the original thread. At first I thought I’d inadvertently changed sort orders in outlook. But here is an example for the curious:

The thread: Finally a Little Recognition !! (All Times I assume are my local time.)

2) David Topete replies 9:53, I receive 9:54

3) Doug Mayer replies 9:54, I receive 10:03

1) Stan Caldwell sends original message 9:49, I receive 10:23

This neither reflects the first in first out (FIFO) operation of a queue, nor the last in first out (LIFO) operation of a stack. Something blocked and delayed the original message in this direction, but obviously not to those that replied. Curious!

Regards

Steven CONRAD Harrison

B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust

mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com

Roy Harrison & Associates

Consulting Engineers (Structural)

PO Box 104

Para Hills

SA 5096

South Australia

tel: 8395 2177

fax: 8395 8477

RE: Geotech reports

Often a Geotech Report is published as an Appendix to the Contract Documents - it is not officially part of the Contract requirements but is provided for reference. Sometimes the specifications simply state that the Geotech Report is available for viewing.

The Contractor should not be expected make any "design" decisions or to alter the foundations shown on the Contract documents based on the Geotech Report, but the report may be useful in planning and estimating the project and in establishing excavation methods, etc. There should be a disclaimer that the Contractor is responsible for any "assumptions" made regarding subgrade conditions based on the Geotech Report.

Bill Sherman

CH2M HILL / DEN

720-286-2792

From: bpce@aol.com [mailto:bpce@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:44 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Geotech reports

Are not specification part of Contract Documents?

Kulwant S. Brah, SE

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom.Hunt@fluor.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Geotech reports

Al,

Sound like you have a pretty smart Architect. This is a very good idea as there are probably Geotechnical "recommendations" within the report that the construction contractor needs to follow. If it is not in the contract documents how else would you enforce them.

Thomas Hunt, S.E.
Fluor

"Greene, Al [PTS]" <AGFO@chevron.com>
03/30/2007 08:15 AM
Please respond to seaint

To	<seaint@seaint.org>
cc
Subject	Geotech reports

I have an architect who wants the geotech report text to be part of the contract documents for construction. I can see it for the bore logs and tests. Your thoughts?

Al Greene, PE, SECB
Chevron Richmond Refinery
841 Chevron Way, 244/Tech Center
Richmond, CA 94802
Phone: (510) 242-1788
Fax: (510) 242-2509
Cell: (510) 507-5080
agfo@chevron.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary,
business-confidential and/or privileged material.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message you
are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission,
dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken
in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect
the views of the company.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

RE: ListServer Anomaly: Stacks/Queues:LIFO/FIFO and Timezones

Well, you can blame that one on NAFTA. Actually, it’s pausing for some tea in Victoria. OT: Went to Vancouver a few years back, but couldn’t make it over to Victoria. We’ll make it there soon.

David A. Topete, SE

From: Thor Tandy [mailto:vicpeng@telus.net]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:49 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: ListServer Anomaly: Stacks/Queues:LIFO/FIFO and Timezones

I've been seeing the same thing here and I'm just across the border.

Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, MIStructE, Struct Eng
Victoria, BC
Canada

David Topete wrote:

That’s a lot of wire to transfer information from here to “Down Undah”… J

David A. Topete, SE

From: Conrad Harrison [mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:35 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: ListServer Anomaly: Stacks/Queues:LIFO/FIFO and Timezones

Often I seem to receive replies before the original thread. At first I thought I’d inadvertently changed sort orders in outlook. But here is an example for the curious:

The thread: Finally a Little Recognition !! (All Times I assume are my local time.)

2) David Topete replies 9:53, I receive 9:54

3) Doug Mayer replies 9:54, I receive 10:03

1) Stan Caldwell sends original message 9:49, I receive 10:23

This neither reflects the first in first out (FIFO) operation of a queue, nor the last in first out (LIFO) operation of a stack. Something blocked and delayed the original message in this direction, but obviously not to those that replied. Curious!

Regards

Steven CONRAD Harrison

B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust

mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com

Roy Harrison & Associates

Consulting Engineers (Structural)

PO Box 104

Para Hills

SA 5096

South Australia

tel: 8395 2177

fax: 8395 8477

Re: Geotech reports

Al,

Why not reference it in the contract documents and provide enough copies (two or three) for the General and those Subs who actually need to know what is in it? Certainly the Painters, Appliance Suppliers, and many others don't even care if you have a soil report. Providing copies for everyone is a waste of paper and money; but it's the Architect's paper and money; if he really wants to do it let him!

Regards,

H. Daryl Richardson

----- Original Message -----

From: Greene, Al [PTS]

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:15 AM

Subject: Geotech reports

I have an architect who wants the geotech report text to be part of the contract documents for construction. I can see it for the bore logs and tests. Your thoughts?

Al Greene, PE, SECB
Chevron Richmond Refinery
841 Chevron Way, 244/Tech Center
Richmond, CA 94802
Phone: (510) 242-1788
Fax: (510) 242-2509
Cell: (510) 507-5080
agfo@chevron.com

Re: Finally a Little Recognition !!

In a message dated 3/30/07 5:14:47 AM, seaint1@truesdellengineering.com writes:

My stock line in client meetings is "Architects make it pretty, I keep it from falling down."
Jordan

When asked what I do I just tapped a nearby pipe column. "Oh, you put posts in the way of people?!"

Ralph

**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Re: Geotech reports

Are not specification part of Contract Documents?

Kulwant S. Brah, SE

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom.Hunt@fluor.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Geotech reports

"Greene, Al [PTS]" <AGFO@chevron.com>
03/30/2007 08:15 AM
Please respond to seaint

To	<seaint@seaint.org>
cc
Subject	Geotech reports

I have an architect who wants the geotech report text to be part of the contract documents for construction. I can see it for the bore logs and tests. Your thoughts?

Al Greene, PE, SECB
Chevron Richmond Refinery
841 Chevron Way, 244/Tech Center
Richmond, CA 94802
Phone: (510) 242-1788
Fax: (510) 242-2509
Cell: (510) 507-5080
agfo@chevron.com

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

RE: ListServer Anomaly: Stacks/Queues:LIFO/FIFO and Timezones

That’s a lot of wire to transfer information from here to “Down Undah”… J

David A. Topete, SE

From: Conrad Harrison [mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:35 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: ListServer Anomaly: Stacks/Queues:LIFO/FIFO and Timezones

Often I seem to receive replies before the original thread. At first I thought I’d inadvertently changed sort orders in outlook. But here is an example for the curious:

The thread: Finally a Little Recognition !! (All Times I assume are my local time.)

2) David Topete replies 9:53, I receive 9:54

3) Doug Mayer replies 9:54, I receive 10:03

1) Stan Caldwell sends original message 9:49, I receive 10:23

Regards

Steven CONRAD Harrison

B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust

mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com

Roy Harrison & Associates

Consulting Engineers (Structural)

PO Box 104

Para Hills

SA 5096

South Australia

tel: 8395 2177

fax: 8395 8477